Letter to RedEye: CTA Suggestions

Recently, the RedEye's Going Public column opened the floor to hear suggestions for the CTA so they could improve service and reliability and all the other things we want the CTA to provide because it doesn't.

I came up with a few ideas. Here's my letter. We'll see if any of it gets printed, since I didn't see that they did today.

Since the RedEye is calling for suggestions for the CTA, I can't resist drafting my own list of suggestions:

1) Bus tires.

I don't know what is wrong with the tires on every single bus I get on, but there seems to be a near-constant, squealing, screeching noise coming from the wheel areas. It almost sounds as if some of the wheels on my bus aren't going 'round and 'round - but are literally being dragged along the ground all the time. If this is the case, I'm sure it's affecting the gas mileage of the bus, and fixing this problem would lead to better gas efficiency, better speed and handling, and IT WOULD STOP THE SQUEALING NOISE!

2) "Approximately one minute."

I'm getting a little sick of the "Attention customers: an ___BOUND train, ___ the Loop, will be arriving in approximately one minute" messages. Okay, some stations just have an "arriving shortly" message, but the whole system is a moot point. By the time these messages are playing and being displayed, the train is IN SIGHT. I like the suggestion I read about replacing it with just a sign that flashes with the direction of the train (inbound/outbound) that would do the same thing, quicker and easier, but I'm taking it one step forward. If we have some ridiculous trigger or sensor that alerts the sign to scroll some text and play that dumb message, why can't we move it back farther, maybe to the previous station, and have a countdown of the minutes we'll be waiting for the next train? This would alleviate rubberneckers who lean INTO THE TRACK AREA to fight over catching the first glimpse of an incoming train - which always happens BEFORE any message plays. Just give us a countdown so people can just relax and wait, rather than endanger themselves because we never have a clue when a train is REALLY coming in this whole system until we actually SEE it.

3) Leaks and puddles.

Dear CTA: You know where the roof is leaking. You know it's causing puddles. Spend $5 and get a freaking TARP for the leak to divert the puddle AWAY from customers. The end.

4) Bus-bunching research.

Here's how you can PROBABLY solve the entire bus-bunching phenomenon for about $100 per bus route (though we all know I'm talking about the #8 Halsted, because if THAT could be fixed, anything could be fixed four times as easily). Buy twenty one-day passes. Give them to twenty college students who have nothing better to do than spend a day fixing the CTA. Tell their professors to give them extra credit if they're civil engineers or something. Have them board the bus route at one end, one per bus, so you've now got twenty researchers on twenty buses in a row, all with a watch, notepad and pen. Have them record the time as they get to each stop, and take notes on anything significant that's delaying the bus, whether it's unruly passengers, traffic accidents, or the bus is just going REALLY SLOWLY. When they get to the end of the route, have them get off and board going the opposite way, and repeat. In one day, you'll have enough data to plot the movement of the buses, make all kinds of graphs and charts, and I'm sure you'll have a thousand times more information about the bus-bunching phenomenon than you ever did before. All for a lousy $100. You're welcome!

5) Enforcing the rules.

At every level, from the CTA to the federal government, it winds up with the fact that we have too many laws and not enough enforcement. I read the entire debate over whether or not there are CTA rules about strollers on buses and trains, but where's the debate over actual-factual rules that simply aren't being enforced? We all love to argue over the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of the buses and trains, but when was the last time you saw anyone being fined or punished for eating/drinking on the CTA? The signs and loudspeakers make it clear that there IS a rule, but nobody enforces it. And the soliciting! My goodness, it's like I can't take one ride on a train without being harassed for change, asked to buy something that was probably stolen, or hit up for money by children and their fundraisers. No soliciting means NO SOLICITING! One of these days, I'm going to snap - grab the solicitor by the scruff of the neck, threaten to drag them off the train and to the nearest police officer or security person, and fine them to the full extent of the law. That is, of course, unless they pay me some hush money. The irony alone of hitting up solicitors for money as a threat is delicious enough to make it worth trying at least once.

6) More buses, more trains.

As long as they're all borderline-functional, why not drag out the rest of the monstrocities hiding in storage or CTA garages? If what they've got on display now is the cream of the crop, how far down could their B-team of vehicles really be? Get more trains and buses out there, especially during rush hour, and this will alleviate a huge portion of the crammed-full trains and all of the problems it brings to commuters. It does no good being in a seat if three stops later, every pathway is stuffed to capacity with people blocking any chance of exit, and you're literally SHOVING people out of the way because they don't understand that this is your stop and they CAN step out of the train momentarily to clear a path and then GET BACK ON! Between 4:45pm and 5:45pm, there should be a non-stop flow of trains rotating around the Loop. Believe me, even if the duration between trains were the two minutes for it to pull out, have the other line's train pull in and pull out, then have the next train pull in - by the time they left the Loop, they would be 3/4 full. And 3/4 full allows for room to wiggle your way out of the train with few problems, unlike sardine-stuffed trains.

These are just a sampling of the numerous suggestions one could make on improving the CTA. Feel free to print any/all of them - the faster they can reach Ron Huberman, the better!

Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport

Like I said, I submitted this yesterday, and nothing in today's paper. Maybe tomorrow. We'll have to wait and see, but I thought I'd at least throw it out there for you readers, just in case.




Read more!

PETA vs Vick: The Numbers Don't Lie

I'll agree with PETA on one thing (waits for the *gasp*s to cease): dogfighting and the preparations for dogfighting are cruelty to the animals. Few animals on the planet enjoy being electrocuted (notice how I said "few" - I know some twisted individuals out there). But with that in mind, PETA has gotten so worked up over the fact that Michael Vick participated (or stood by and allowed it) in the deaths of eight dogs.

Eight. Keep that number in mind.

I get it. Vick killed animals. Or rather, let them die. No, I'll go as far as to say he killed them, and I'm sure there are legal terms for criminally-neglegent homocide, except homocide is for killing people - is it "canuside"? "Canucide"? "Dogicide"?

Anyway, the point is that the ones who are pointing fingers and calling him out are the members of PETA. If there were ever a case of pots calling kettles black, these pots in particular would be black holes - so dark that no amount of light could ever escape the darkness that dwells in these pots. Because PETA certainly kills animals. "How many? More than eight?" - I hear you cry.

Try 14,400 since 1998.

It's a number that the Center for Consumer Freedom is trying to get out to the public, going to the point of taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times to illustrate the hypocrisy of this "humane" organization. The text of the ad reads as such:

Who’s killed more animals? Vick (8) or PETA (14,400):

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) loves to point the finger at others, when they should be looking at their own record of killing more than 90% of the animals left in their care. According to government records PETA has killed more than 14,400 animals since 1998.

In fact, PETA has been using the Michael Vick incident to sell shirts, gain subscribers, and otherwise profit from someone who's killed a mere fraction of the animals they've killed in the past year alone.

"PETA has shamelessly used the horrific Michael Vick case to pad their group’s coffers, even though their track record of slaughtering thousands of helpless, adoptable animals is far more damning," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "Americans need to be aware of how PETA treats animals in their care and reject the group’s overt hypocrisy."

I mean for crying out loud - two employees of PETA in North Carolina admitted personally killing dozens of dogs and cats in what was literally a "death van" and then tossing the lifeless bodies of the critters into a nearby trash dumpster.

Again, dogfighting and those who torture the dogs to prepare them for the fights are fine examples of cruelty to animals. I'm not saying that isn't the case. My point is that you can't take it seriously when the screams of cruelty are coming from those responsible for puppy-killing deathmoblies. You wouldn't listen to a serial killer speaking out against a man who committed second-degree manslaughter, so why would you listen to an organization responsible for killing over 14,000 animals speaking out against a man who killed 8? The math doesn't add up. The logic doesn't add up.

Yes, Michael Vick killed animals.
But PETA killed thousands more this year alone.

And they're still out there, killing more dogs and cats every day, all the while yelling how killing animals is wrong and cruel.

At least they locked up Vick. When are we finally going to arrest every member of PETA?

And don't even get me started on the other animal-rights terrorist groups...

(www.PETAkillsanimals.com)
(Their press release about the PETA versus Vick advertisement)







Read more!

Children's Museum and Racism?

That's what Mayor Daley keeps implying (no, wait, he's blatantly shouting it) - that opposition to moving the Children's Museum from its current smaller location at Navy Pier to a larger space in Grant Park constitutes as racism. That opposing the placement of a new and expanded Children's Museum in Grant Park automatically means that you fear a horde of minority children and poor people cluttering up the rich white folks' neighborhood.

Well, Daley - such is not the case, and it makes YOU the racist. Or at least a sellout.

The real brainchild behind this is Jean Pritzker, the billionaire president of the board of the Children's Museum. What it all assuredly comes down to is that the expanded museum allows for more customers coming in at $8 a head, and the location allows for lots of public-transportation-fed customers as well as ample parking for those who are more likely to waste $8 a person to enter a Children's Museum.

You all know that I'm a capitalist and a realist (which I think equates to a cynic), but I'm definitely siding with Alderman Reilly on this one, because my sense of tradition and opposition to hypocrisy outweigh the acceptance of another rich person just wanting to get richer. The main argument being made on his side of the campaign to keep the museum out is certainly NOT one of racism - it's legal precedence. Grant Park has had a 171-year history of being legally protected from these kinds of construction projects. That protection was made in 1836, and has been reaffirmed four times by the Illinois Supreme Court: that Grant Park be formally protected as "Public Ground -- A Common to Remain Forever Open, Clear and Free of any Buildings, or other Obstruction Whatever."

It's as simple as that. End of argument. Case closed. No museum, kthxbye.

Daley, do you think that this museum, funded and led by your billionaire friend, is the best opportunity that Grant Park has seen? There have been dozens of projects proposed for that parcel of land - and all of them have been turned down. If they hadn't been turned down, there would be no Grant Park left other than the name itself, and that doesn't sound like a place that is "forever open, clear and free of any buildings" at all - does it?

Reilly isn't alone in this fight, either. Some aldermen are joining the cause because Reilly is right about the legal precedence, and generous enough to offer suggestions of other places WITHOUT the legal protection that Grant Park has where the new museum could be built. Some are joining purely because Daley is throwing his weight around and vetoing the decision. This ruffles the feathers of some of the other City Council members, since city projects in THEIR wards have almost always been at THEIR discretion (though it's usually an emphatic "yes") and having that decision power vetoed by the Mayor is causing a disturbance among the aldermen. Some are probably just joining in anger of Daley throwing around his racism accusations when there obviously is none.

Here's a sample of what Daley has been saying:

"You mean you don't want children from the city in Grant Park? Why? Are they black? Are they white? Are they Hispanic? Are they poor? You don't want children? We have children in Grant Park all the time. This is a park for the entire city. What do you mean no one wants children down there? Why not? Wouldn't you want children down there?"

If I may, now that most of the factual information has been presented, I'd like to address the mayor's questions in my usual rant-like and mildly-offensive manner:

Leave the race out of it, Daley, and maybe you'll learn something. No, we don't all want children around. In fact, I'd probably be voting to keep kid-friendly buildings out of my neighborhood. Why? Because they're (in general) whiny, obnoxious brats who cause disturbances in peaceful places - never completely satisfied and always ready to verbalize that at any given point in time, appropriate or not. "Are they poor?" Of course they're poor, they're children! They don't have money to contribute to society! In fact, humans are the species with the WORST duration of time between birth and being able to contribute back to the community. It takes us, on average, nineteen years. If a lion cub took nineteen years to make satisfactory contributions back to the pack, it would surely have been eaten in the process. Children may be our future, but they certainly don't make it seem like it'll be a bright future. And they are certainly NOT our greatest resource. Our greatest resource is probably money. Not children.

And before you get all "my child is the bestest ever and the cutest too" on me, I'm sure it is. To YOU. If Heaven is in the eyes of your children, then I can say without a doubt that Hell is in the eyes of OTHER people's children. They're not all smart, they're not all cute, and they're definitely not all "precious" - all reasons why I wouldn't want an influx of them in my neighborhood, Daley!

So let's keep the Children's Museum where it is - over at Navy Pier with the other kid-friendly attractions, so I know exactly where to avoid running into your children. I'm sure you'd agree it's for the best, parents.

(Article saying it's racism)
(Article saying it's not racism)
(Someone who seems to really get the idea)







Read more!

Chicago Traffic: 2nd-Worst in the Nation

I am not a driver.

I just had to get that out of the way, so you know that the rest of this post is going to be only pure facts from the article I read, or pure opinion that should be taken with a grain of salt. Last time I was behind the wheel of a car was 2001, and that was just getting some practice hours in before thinking about going for my driver's license, which I obviously never bothered to get. Of course, that's because I moved here to Chicago, under the impression that I would never need a car here - thanks to the public transportation system.

In retrospect, maybe it wasn't all that horrible of a decision. For all the guff my friends give me about not owning a car or being able to drive, and how crappy the CTA runs here in the city - I can at least rub their noses back in the fact that in comparison, I think the vehicular congestion and waste of resources is a much crappier system to be a part of. Plus, I moved here to Chicago from the city of Los Angeles - so I technically upgraded. While Chicago is #2 or #3 worst in a lot of these categories of horrible driving conditions, at least L.A. stays put at #1, though not by a huge margin.

According to the study results that were done on traffic conditions and congestion and delays and whatnot - every year, the average Chicago motorist loses 46 hours of time stuck in traffic during peak hours. Back in 1995, they only lost 33 hours per year, so you can see that the incline keeps going. Every year, more than an entire average WORKWEEK is lost just because of peak-hour traffic, per driver. The amount of fuel that adds up to, per driver, is 32 gallons. The total cost is $906, just due to traffic alone. When you account for the fact that there are millions of drivers out there, it's a total of over 203 million hours lost and costs over $4 billion annually.

The 203 million hours lost puts Chicago smack dab in 3rd place, with New York losing 384 million hours a year and Los Angeles taking the cake with 491 million hours lost. But the real shame brought to Chicago is that it is #2 in the category of Time Indexes. A Time Index is how to calculate how much time you should prepare in advance to make a trip due to delays. Chicago has a Time Index of 1.47, which means that for every 20-minute drive you take, it's going to really take 29.4 minutes. Only Los Angeles has a higher Time Index, and it's only higher by .03 - meaning it'll take a full 30 minutes for that 20-minute trip in the City of Angels.

Of course, I don't put much stock in the Time Index system, after taking a look at it. I mean, it's a great idea in theory, but it's that base-time calculation that befuddles me. Were these trips timed at 20 minutes based simply on drives taken during non-peak hours? Is that 9pm? Midnight? 3am on a Sunday? There's no way to get a "lab test" or any real scientific control done on a commute, so it's very difficult to predict what your base time for any drive would be, meaning that any calculation using a Time Index is going to be rather fruitless.

Here's something that I thought interesting: judging by the numbers, the study shows that the city of Chicago has over 4.4 million drivers on the road. That's the number they used to multiply the 46 hours and $906 lost annually per driver to get those astronomical numbers for the city itself. So what about the third number that they calculated? If every driver is wasting 32 gallons of gasoline per year, then that means that every year over 142 million gallons of gas are being wasted.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill only lost about 11 million gallons of crude oil. Every year, Chicago is wasting more gasoline than almost 13 Exxon Valdez spills.

And people still give me grief about taking city transportation? I'd rather deal with "slow zones" than this mess. Losing $906 a year, on top of whatever it costs to run and maintain a car and keep it filled with gas, let alone parking in the city? No thanks. $906 could buy more than twelve 30-day CTA passes, so I could pay for a year's worth of transportation with the EXTRA WASTED money that a Chicago driver loses in that year.

Every now and then, with all of the muck and mire that the CTA gets dragged through, there are still things that make me appreciate it just enough to keep following and using it. Aside from the colorful cast of characters you meet on buses and trains, there are a few nice things about using public transportation - even if it means relying on the frequently-unreliable. And there's the financial benefit. Something tells me that buses aren't going to fare anywhere near cars when you consider the traffic and time-loss implications (they're in the same traffic, plus making stops along the way) - but the trains make up for it all, even when you take into consideration all of the "slow zones" that commuters seem bogged down with.

Maybe it really is faster than driving. It's certainly cheaper, for now. But then again, I guess you get what you pay for.

(A version of the article printed in the RedEye)
(A pretty graph of some of these numbers)







Read more!

Back to School Special: Part 2

It's only about halfway through September, only about two weeks into most school years, and already the news articles are flooding in about school behaviors and suspensions and even one article about some little girl bringing in a grenade for show-and-tell. So I guess it's time to ring the bell, have you students find your seats and shut the hell up - here are your lessons for the day.

Lesson #1: How NOT to wear a shirt.

As you'd expect, there has to be at LEAST one mention of a "kids get suspended for untucked shirts" article. It's written into so many school dress codes, and every year the teachers and principals get riled up about it, and you just KNOW someone's going to get suspended. This time it was 70 kids at Rogers High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Well, okay, they didn't get suspended for not tucking in their shirts - they got suspended for a more asinine and hilarious reason: protesting the dress code about tucking in their shirts. It's a suspendable offense to encourage other students to violate school rules or regulations. FINALLY, a school law I can support, if it means getting protesting kids to shut the hell up and get back to learning.

For those of you who don't understand why a school would even bother to care about shirts being tucked in, this school in particular had a student who wore a shirt that was too long and untucked, and managed to bring a weapon into school. The superintendant immediately called for shirts to be appropriate lengths and tucked in, to avoid this problem in the future.

For you students out there - follow the damned rules. A school is no place to be hellbent on protesting and fighting "the man" because of rules you think are unfair. Tough. Rules will always be unfair, you'll always be given the short end of every stick, and you keep your head down and play by those rules or you wind up getting suspended or expelled. In the real world, you get arrested, sued and possibly attacked for pulling stunts like that. Fighting for what you believe in is totally cool and fine, but do so in other places than school. You're not supposed to fight in school, anyway - or are you going to protest THAT rule too?

Lesson #2: How to wear a shirt.

For this lesson, we look to Canada, where a 9th-grade newbie wore a pink shirt to school and was harassed and threatened by bullies - being called a homosexual and being set upon by a group of 6 to 10 older students. Two seniors who found out about this incident decided to finally do something about it - once and for all.

They got together about 75 pink shirts and brought lots of pink material for making headbands and armbands, passing them out to the other schoolkids in support of this one freshman who had been victimized. Some students brought in pink clothing of their own, or things like a pink basketball - anything to show up and show support. In the end, about half of the school's 830 students had pink.

The bullies, frustrated by this show up support and what they probably considered to be flagrant homosexuality, wound up furiously throwing chairs and trying to throw around what little weight they had left in the populous. The students responsible for the show of support, David and Travis, said, "Kids don’t need this in their lives, worrying about what to wear to school. That should be the last thing on their minds."

Couldn't have said it better, kids. Which is why I still think it's a good idea to consider school uniforms or stricter dress codes. The less kids have to think about what to wear to school, the less attention will be brought to what kids are wearing, and the more attention that leaves for school work and LEARNING.

Lesson #3: Sexy dancing is not for school dances.

Another school year beginning also wouldn't be complete without a look into the war against sexy dancing. While I'm not talking about Footloose-strong bans on dancing or anything of the sort, I'm just talking about kids and their lewd and lascivious dance moves being perpetrated on the dance floor. And parents and teachers are STILL trying to take a stand against it in any way they can think of to fight it.

So why care? What reason could I possibly have against the freedom of speech, twisted in a bastardization that "dance is the speech of the body" or some hippie-ism? Because it's a SCHOOL DANCE. I don't even understand why schools still have dances of this variety, other than the blatant fundraising that schools get away with. Pay for tickets, pay for food and drinks, pay for pictures to be taken - just another way for schools to drain money from students and, of course, their parents. But apparently the days of decent dancing and bringing a date are long gone - they're now the nerd version of raves, complete with inappropriate outfits, inappropriate music, and inappropriate dancing. Dark corners, glowsticks and humping the crap out of each other on a dance floor? I don't know why a school would even THINK of letting this go on.

My real beef here isn't with the school for hosting these events, or parents for not teaching their kids any better - my real quarrel here is with the students themselves. You know, I'm not that old. I understand the sexual nature of some dances. I was once a pubescent teenager who'd thrill at the chance to dry-hump the ass of some pretty girl in my class. But even if given the chance, there's no way in HELL I'd be able to do so in front of my Geography teacher, Mrs. Chin - or my AP Chemistry teacher, Dr. Darakjian. To even contemplate a minimal sexual-nature act in front of any of these school figureheads would cause an erection to disappear faster than a bowl of spiked punch.

And what ever happened to the good ol' days of spiked punch? What, you're comfortable risking getting kicked out for butt-grinding, but wouldn't want to risk anything to slip some rum in the punch?

Kids - freaky-deaky dancing is perfectly normal for teens your age. But there's a time and a place for it. The time and place is when parents aren't awake and where parents and teachers would not go. Basements with your teenage friends, a hallway closet, an authentic warehouse rave - these are appropriate places to get your "freak on" without the watchful eye of chaperones and assistant-principals.

There's the bell. Class will resume at a later time, possibly after you've had time to recover from the cafeteria food.

(Article about Lesson #1)
(Article about Lesson #2)
(Article about Lesson #3)







Read more!

Kia Vaughn Withdraws - No Money Shot

Surprise, surprise. I called it. Kia Vaughn (aka "the ho") has officially withdrawn her lawsuits of defamation and slander that she brought up against Don Imus and CBS Radio (among others) on the exact day that Imus negotiated a $20 million deal and got his radio show back. That move alone won her the official title of "ho" in my book, since she did a notoriously dispicable thing just for the money.

As I expected, it was pretty damned obvious she didn't have a leg to stand on in the court case, let alone the notion of having to defend that the things said were lies in the first place.

I mean, first off, she was never targeted by any of the statements. Nobody seems to recall anything other than the two words that sparked the controversy in the first place, but the one that came right before "nappy-headed hos" just happened to be the word "some". Got that? "Some," not "Kia Vaughn" or any targeted member of the team. Had he said "all" instead, she might have grounds to file, since she would invariably be a member of the "all" collective - but it is in no way possible to claim that she is without-a-doubt a member of the "some" collective that Imus was referring to.

Plus, again, it's only defamation and slander if someone actually believes it.

The part of this story's ending (for now) is the statement being made on Kia Vaughn's side of the now-dropped case. Kia Vaughn had no comment. Her lawyer didn't even have a comment. But Kia Vaughn's lawyer's spokesperson had a comment to make? He basically said that Vaughn has chosen to "focus" her attention to her journalism major at Rutgers and her position on the basketball team. "Her strong commitments to both have influenced her decision to withdraw the lawsuit at this time," the statement said.

I think she realized that nobody wants to play on a team with - or hire as a journalist - a ho.

(One story covering the withdrawal)







Read more!

Illegal Immigrants and the House of Representatives

I am shocked and appalled of the truth of the situation, and I want to fully applaud and rally support for Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) and the resolution she had introduced back in Jan. 07 and still sits in Committee since Feb. 07. Here's where it all begins, and my mouth starts hitting the floor:

Our Constitution currently says that representatives in the House of Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each state.

Now on the surface, that doesn't seem like an issue at all. Especially when you consider that it wasn't all that long ago that a black person only counted as three-fifths of a person when counting population with the census. How far we've travelled since then. The issue arises when you consider the fact that we have tens of millions of illegal immigrants cluttering up our country. Here is an interesting tidbit that I picked up from Rep. Miller's letter to the editor she sent to the Washington Post:

"Montana has one representative for a population of about 895,000 citizens. The 34th District of California has one representative but fewer than 420,000 citizens."

California, breeding ground for the infestation of illegal immigrants (what with its sanctuary cities of lawlessness), has so many non-citizens cluttering up the census that they are getting a bloated representation in our government. While the 34th District of California isn't the most populated by illegal immigrants, it's known for being the most Hispanic/Latino populated district. The only figure I found for the population of the district (population, not citizens) was "over 600,000" - and I don't know how old that number is. Which means that their Representative should have less than 70% of the power currently held. Less than 70% of that district's population are CITIZENS of the United States - so why should they be allowed to have an oversized say in what happens in the government?

H.J. Res. 6, sponsored by Candice Miller, would amend that part of the Constitution to apportion the representatives according to the number of citizens of the United States, rather than just the number of persons in each state.

When you think about it, it makes nothing but sense and you might even get as furious as I was over how screwed up the system currently is and that NOBODY seems to notice. Why should illegal immigrants affect the governmental representation that makes laws for CITIZENS of the United States? Why would we let criminals buff up the power of their districts to attempt to give them amnesty for their crimes?

It's ideas like these that make me ponder other things. Like the Electoral College when electing a president - wouldn't this change have to be made in order to properly divy electoral votes when having an election? That if we were counting the number of citizens instead of the population, California wouldn't be AS large of a number and neither would Texas? Maybe then we could get fairer representation for all the states and the citizens living in them. I'd rather have states like Montana and North Dakota and even West Virginia (smallest immigration percentage, according to the 2006 census) getting a little more pull and taking away some pull from California and Texas and other illegal-immigrant-heavy states. Candidates shouldn't have to pander extra hard in states for those oversized electoral votes. They should be able to focus on states with more actual citizens - the ones they'd be in charge of at the end of it all.

I don't care how much you point your finger at the fact that our founding fathers were "illegal immigrants from Europe" when they made the Constitution - that's why they had to eventually set up immigration laws and citizenship, to regulate things and keep the populous in balance.

It's time that we replace more "persons" with "citizens" in our Constitution and other legislation.

Sorry, Lincoln, but I'd rather have a "government of the citizens, by the citizens, for the citizens" that shall not perish from this earth.

Oh, and as always...

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.

(Rep. Candice Miller's letter to the editor)
(More info on H.J. Rep. 6)

(News article from the Chicago branch of the insanity)







Read more!

Immigrants vs Western Union

It's a tale as old as time (well, the time when illegal immigrants started flooding the USA) - illegal immigrant crosses border, takes up a job that should have gone to an American citizen, and when his low (but higher-than-you'd-think) paycheck comes in, there's a quick dash to the Western Union to wire ill-gotten monies back home to his relatives who are feeding off the crimes of their border-crossing savior. Now try thinking that thought WITHOUT the words "Western Union" - and you'll find that it's a difficult task.

After all, Western Union is just about the only way we tend to think about wiring money from one place to another. It's embedded in our collective minds the same way that Kleenex is synonymous with "tissues" and Band-Aid is synonymous with "adhesive bandages". It's this dominance over the money-wiring industry (not to mention efficiency and effectiveness) that allows Western Union to pretty much set its own fees and there's little, if any, alternative to get your money to someone else as quickly as they can.

That's where the illegal immigrants come in. Some jackass immigration advocate named Carlos Arango is organizing the Chicago branch of the Western Union boycott that's supposedly happening around the country. Mostly in high-illegal cities, of course. Their problem with the system is that Western Union (and I quote):

"They get all this money, and all they have to do is push a button" to send the money over, he said.

Yea, that's right, asshole. They get your dirty money, push a button, and your criminal funds go off to Mexico and your relatives. And they have every damned right to charge you whatever they want in order to do that.

It's called business - and they're quite good at it.

You know what you SHOULD try to do? Go somewhere else. If you don't want to be charged $10 by the best company just to get your money to your family, go find someone else to do it. The choices are few and far-between, but you ALWAYS have options. You could pay some OTHER illegal $5 to simply walk back to Mexico and deliver the money for you. Odds are that the process would take a lot longer, and would be less reliable that your money would actually get there. You have the choice. It's just really freakin' obvious which is the best choice. And unfortunately, it will cost you that $10.

You know what you SHOULDN'T try to do? Demand things of the business that's been properly handling your financial transactions and threaten to withhold your business from them. First off, you're asking them to donate $1 per every money transfer toward economic development in the U.S. and in countries being sent money. Do you even understand the word "donate", you numbskull? It's a voluntary decision to be charitable, not a contractual obligation spurred on by angry protesters! And why would that money be put into economic development in all of these countries where you need to send your money? On a national level from a government standpoint, I could see that helping other countries economically helps us economically - especially when it means fewer criminals will cross the border to steal work from our citizens because their country is in the crapper. But on a business standpoint for a company that makes billions of dollars BECAUSE your country is in the crapper and that's why you need to wire money there? That would be BAD business. And no amount of protest will lead to a company doing BAD business to appease the foolish masses.

Oh, and as far as the above statement goes, about some kind of anguish that the company charges $10 for the employee to "get the money and push a button" - are you arguing that the effort required to wire the money is so seemingly little that it doesn't warrant the $10 in your mind? Because it took a helluva lot of business savvy and financial planning to SET UP the system in the first place. Plus, the business itself needs to pay to keep its doors open, keep the place running, and keep staff paid to they will come in to work and push the button that wires your money. It's called running a business - and it takes money to do that, you dumbass!

"They are becoming billionaires on the backs of immigrant workers," Arango said during a news conference near a Western Union check-cashing store in Pilsen.

Western Union spokesman Daniel Diaz wouldn't comment directly on the boycott, saying: "We are very proud to provide consumers with fast, reliable and trusted service."

You're damned right, Diaz! You have every right to set your prices, because you're the best in the business with the fastest and most reliable service available. If any of these protesters give you lip about your prices, you should remind them of the easiest solution to their problems:

"You don't want to pay to wire money? Then go the hell back to your own country where you belong and then you won't have to wire money anymore!"

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.

(News article from the Chicago branch of the insanity)







Read more!

Cats are on the Menu!

Hah! I come up with a great idea, and thankfully it is being utilized somewhere around the world! As some of you may remember from this earlier post, I suggested that our response to the overpopulation of dogs and cats in this country should be to simply EAT them. After all, animals are made of meat, and if we have too many of an animal, logic would dictate that we eat them to "thin the herds".

It's already happened in China, that the overflowing lake caused an infestation of rats, so their logical response was to catch and eat the rats. Of course, it was more of catching the rats and selling them to restaurants by the kilogram, where they'd then be killed and cooked and served as a delicacy. Nevertheless, a problem of too many animals resulted pleasantly with "eat the animals" as a solution.

So now we come to Australia. Feral cats (descendants of housecats who were left to fend for themselves) have become a huge problem in the outback. The cats are killing off all of the smaller animals in the wild, which apparently is a bad thing for the Australians. Somehow. Anyway, one woman in Alice Springs has decided to take my advice (I don't know if she got the idea from reading my blog, but I assume she did, because I didn't hear about this until after I'd posted my idea, so it must have logically come from my post) and brought forth an entry in a cooking contest which was a wild cat casserole - kind of a stew with marinated feral cat meat.

The Aborigines have been eating them for years, actually - roasting the meat over an open fire - but apparently some of the others have more refined palattes. One of the cooking contest judges reportedly had to spit out the meat in a back room because she found it "impossibly tough".

For any of your gourmets out there, here's a rundown of the recipe:

Wild Cat Casserole

The meat should be diced and fried until it is brown. Then lemon grass is to be added along with salt and pepper and three cups of quandong, which is a sweet desert fruit.

It is recommended that the dish be left to simmer for five hours before being garnished with bush plums and mistletoe berries.

Wow! Sounds like a nice holiday dish! I guess the question that's on all of your minds (or it at least WILL be after I've posed the question now) is, "So what does feral cat taste like, anyway?" Well, the report says: "The meat is said to taste like a cross between rabbit and, perhaps inevitably, chicken." I guess sounds about par for the course, a bit of rabbit for the speed and jumping talents, and chicken because - well, doesn't everything default to chicken on our primitive tastebuds?

Say what you want, PETA - fact is, I CALLED IT! Cats are on the menu, and maybe someday this recipe will travel across the Pacific to our humble nation and our humble palattes.

(Proof that I can't make this stuff up - and that I totally called it!)







Read more!

Back-to-School Special

Here in Chicago, it's the first day of school. Which means that in a few weeks, it'll finally be time to take down the "Back to School" sales and really pitch in with the holiday-themed items. I've already seen tons of displays up for Hallowe'en candy, which you can apparently now purchase far enough in advance to wind up eating the entire collection of "fun-sized" candies and still pick up replacements at a discount. But that's a topic for another day: I'm here to relay some messages to the little ones out there who are starting their first days of the new school year.

For the elementary school children:

LEARN TO READ, WRITE AND DO 'RITHMATIC!

We can't all be geniuses who learn to read at age 18 months, but the least you can do is keep at it and become literate - so in time, you'll learn how to spell, how to expand your vocabulary and then you'll be in a position above practically 70% of the population when you're in high school. Of course, knowing how to spell doesn't get put to good use (other than spelling bee trophies) until you learn how to write put your ideas into words. The faster you can pick that up, the better your chances will be of having people take your ideas seriously. As for math, don't be an idiot who has to count things with fingers, and needs to wear open-toed shoes in case they need to go above ten. I'm not saying that you have to take calculus or anything, I'm just saying that all of the good jobs involve degrees that require math - and a lot of the crappier jobs still require you to add and subtract quickly, let alone multiply and divide on a bad day. Trust me, math skills will help you save money in almost every situation if you know how to use it.

For the teachers and parents: in order to have your children learn to read, write and do 'rithmatic, you need to stop babying them! Not everybody is a winner, especially not your kids. They need to learn that someone is always better than them and only one person gets to take home the grand prize. If that's your kid, enjoy the moment while it lasts, because there's always someone at your heels, ready to be the next #1. Teams lose, because one did better than the other. Telling them that "everyone who plays is a winner" plants false ideas in their heads - try implanting good sportsmanship. The best way to do that is by demonstrating it, which means NOT being a jackass parent yelling at an umpire or coach about unfair calls and your precious child not getting enough play time. If you wanted your children to always get to play, you should be playing in a park with them as a family, not as a team.

For the high school children:

SHUT UP, PUT YOUR TOYS AWAY AND LEARN!

You know how your parents and grandparents will tell you boring stories about walking five miles to school, in the snow, both ways, and then using old contraptions like slide rules while hand-writing every piece of work because there were no new-fangled computers back then? LISTEN TO THEM! They didn't have your fancy toys, and they learned enough to get them through life, didn't they? Went to school every day because it's the law, AND they'd get a whoopin' if they were caught playing hookey? Studied real hard so they'd get good grades so they wouldn't get another whoopin'? Graduated high school and either went to college or got a job - something something more whoopin'?

It's called a "hard life" and it builds character! That's not just a catchphrase taught to all parents in a mandatory seminar. (Trust me, while all parents should have a mandatory seminar, this whole "character" notion is something bonus that comes from people who actually did it.) Things that are hard to do are usually the things worth doing. Hand-write an essay and you'll find you're more careful about your wording and making mistakes in the language. Try multiplying or adding something on paper instead of with a calculator every now and then - it's a good refresher and firing up those brain synapses keeps them active and healthy and can actually help ward off Alzheimer's.

As for your toys - leave them at home, where toys belong. Yes, every single human being on the planet now seems to have a cellphone - great for emergency contact and scheduling, but not for school time. Same goes for... just about anything electronic that distracts you from shutting up, paying attention and doing your damned schoolwork! I'm not going to promise you that every course and every lesson throughout high school is crucial to living in the real world - but every course DOES offer knowledge that IS necessary to being a well-rounded individual and the potential to not shame your family's name at some point in your life. You know all those studies that say Americans can't locate (insert country) on a map? Maybe if they'd paid more attention in Geography class, they wouldn't be screwing up and making our country the laughingstock in the education department that it currently is!

For the college-bound young adults:

QUIT WASTING TIME AND MONEY AND GET A JOB!

I'm currently more a believer in the idea that college really doesn't do much for you in the real world. And no, college is NOT the real world. It's just a lazy version of high school because parents are no longer part of the equation. They're not pushing you out of bed so you'll get to school/class on time. They're not checking up on your grades with report cards and parent-teacher conferences. They're just an ATM for when beer money supplies are low. This is the point that most college students pass through for some duration of their journey through college. Also the point where I'd yell at them to GET A JOB.

I also hear these tales about how college graduates make $500,000 more in a lifetime, or make double what a non-college graduate makes. What they DON'T mention is the insane amount of loans it generally takes to get through the four years of college for a standard degree. These loans build up, become huge, and even after consolidation - they're huge and you have to pay them with interest. The debt is staggering, and it can seriously ruin your credit rating. What good is an extra 50% salary if all the things you want to buy are off-limits due to bad credit?

You know, not everyone gets into college, either. There's currently an issue in Colorado over the fact that graduation requirements for high schools aren't high enough to match entrance requirements for colleges. So rather than make high school students learn more, or accept the fact that some of 'em aren't good enough or ready for college - they're dropping/lowering the admissions standards to get into college. That's just sick in my book. We're dumbing down so much in American schools, why bother having standards at all? Let's just throw some books at children, expect them to read them, realize they probably won't, then take a nap and wait for the next school year? College is for people who are smart enough and driven enough to warrant getting in. If you're not one of those people, you don't belong in college. Yea, even if you DID get in. Quit wasting everyone's time and just get a job.

Then there's the groups of people who try to convince you that without a degree, you'll never climb that ladder or gain entry to the job positions and types of "work you'll enjoy doing." I say that there are plenty of positions open where the work is something you can enjoy doing. Unfortunately, jobs aren't just about the work, they're about the company/business and co-workers and other employees and bosses that make a job a JOB. If I didn't have bosses yelling at me and deadlines that are unfeasible and co-workers who are a few rocks short of a box, I'd absolutely love the work I'm doing. I enjoy data analysis and reporting. I also enjoy my side-gig of writing articles like these. What it all comes down to is that you can always pick your career - picking everything else isn't up to you, it's all a crap shoot and work was never really meant to be fun.

If work were meant to be fun, they wouldn't have to pay you to get you to do it.

That's all for this segment of my Back-to-School Special. There will undoubtedly be a Part Two.

(The Colorado college stuff)







Read more!

Vigilante Justice: Tar-n-Feathers!

Sadly, this report doesn't come from America. It does, however, provide me with a little bit of appreciation for the will of a community and ideas for my mind to process on how to handle situations where the government isn't doing its job properly.

A drug dealer had been plaguing the community around the Taughmonagh estate in South Belfast, Ireland. Several members of the community took their concerns to the police and provided enough information, in their minds, to get this drug dealer off their streets and behind bars. The police sat on the information and refused to intervene or act in any way to solve the problem.

The community at large became fed up, lost their faith in the proper law enforcement handling the situation, and took the matter into their own hands. In an act that hasn't really been done since back in the 1970's when the Provisional IRA used to handle matters in their own ways - the group doled out some punishment on the man, who has yet to step forward and point a finger at his "attackers".

He doesn't want anyone to know his identity.
Probably because he's a drug dealer.
Also likely that he's embarrassed about being tarred and feathered.

That's right, this group of citizens ambushed the man, dumped tar on his head and feathers were strewn over him. They tied him to a lamppost on the street and hung a sign around his neck for all to come and bear witness to. The sign read: "I'm a drug dealing scumbag."

Of course, police and politicians are up in arms over the event, calling the whole thing "barbaric" and quickly pointing fingers at the loyalist Ulster Defence Association. The UDA maintains that it had nothing to do with the event, and added: "The UDA told the local community to go to the police about this. The community responded in the way it did because it had no confidence in the police."

So what does that equate to us, across the Atlantic? There are so many issues here in the USA that citizens can't trust the government to take care of. Illegal immigration comes to mind. The best form of "vigilante" we have on the case for the fight against illegal immigration is the Minutemen group. And while to most people, the group is seen as rabble-rousing rednecks with guns and bigotry - they're nothing but border watchdogs in reality. They patrol, and call law enforcement agencies when they've spotted someone. They don't even go over and subdue or detain the illegal immigrants themselves as a "citizen's arrest" like they technically have every right to do.

So what happens if we see a true breakdown? That we've finally given up on sitting around and "calling it in" only to find that, once again, nothing has happened? Some local/state law enforcement agencies themselves are fed up with the federal law enforcement agency not doing enough, so they've applied to get trained by the ICE and be able to start deportation paperwork themselves. But it's not enough. Speeding up the process is better, but it's not catching them any faster.

I'd like to see a similar vigilante group here in America, performing these kinds of vigilante justice on the criminals that our government isn't properly taking care of. And you know what? As long as we're going to be "offensively using racial profiling" (which is what any pro-immigration or Latino in general would say) - why not go the whole nine yards?

Forget "tar and feathering" - let's "nacho" them.

In an act similar to a standard tar-and-feather, this one ironically uses their own stereotype against them. Subdue the criminal, tie 'em to a lamppost, and dump a bucket of refried beans or nacho cheese on them. Then dump bags of tortilla chips on top. "Nachoed!" As the coup-de-grace, we can't forget the cardboard sign reading "Soy un scumbag inmigrante ilegal", which of course is "I am an illegal immigrant scumbag" in Spanish.

Maybe after a few "nacho" incidents, police will be more vigilant about locating and deporting illegal immigrants who are cluttering up our streets and our systems that are supposed to be reserved for legal citizens who have the right to utilize them. A few reports of "rampant nacho-ing" might just scare a few of them.

And in the words of Dennis Miller, "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

(The article about the tar-and-feathered guy)







Read more!

Letter to RedEye: Gay Marriage

Well, another letter in to the RedEye. This one, I'm kind of hoping DOESN'T get published, because my friends read it - and most of them are gay. So if you hadn't guessed, this is a "gay marriage" thing. Which, frankly, means that my opinion doesn't really matter at all. I'm not gay. I'm not even married. I can't even manage to land a girlfriend - so I really have no say in what's right or wrong about gay marriage in the first place.

So of course, when the Boy on Boystown guy opens the floor to gay marriage debate - I jump at the chance to make a fool of myself. It's the problem with being a realist. "Should" just isn't a huge part of the process - because what matters most to me is what "is" and what "will" be rather than what "should" be. SHOULD gay marriage be accepted? Probably. WILL it? Probably not - at least not for a while yet. I'm in favor of it, really I am. But you know what scares me the most about gay marriage?

The inevitability of Gay Divorce Court on TV.

Anyway, here's the letter I sent:

Whenever I'm faced with the actual question of whether gay people should be allowed to get married, I have to quote Kinky Freidman by saying, "I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us." In all seriousness, I do believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married - same as the rest of us.

However, the real question isn't one of SHOULD it be allowed, but WILL it be allowed - and I have to say that I doubt it will be happening anytime soon, no matter how many "should"s you throw at it. The fact is that marriage is, as was pointed out, a government institution (despite its pseudo-religious history). Which means that government gets to decide, and it's been made evident in many ways that the government (which is made of elected officials who REPRESENT the country) is not ready to accept homosexuals at a level that allows for them to officially marry. Maybe once there are a decent number of elected homosexual representatives in the government (openly homosexual BEFORE election), gay people will be able to have a better chance of beneficial legislation.

My question back to you is why aren't homosexuals trying to make lemonade out of the lemons that they've been handed? If marriage is exclusive to opposite-sex couples, and civil unions are exclusive to same-sex couples, why is it that the fight is to ignore civil unions and rally for marriage instead of rallying to get benefits and government legislation attached to civil unions? If the only reason for wanting marriage instead of civil unions is the various governmental benefits in the marriage package, why not fight harder to get pieces of that benefit package added to civil unions (if not the whole thing in time)? Why not even go for DIFFERENT benefits or MORE benefits? I think that the civil union is only a weak/unacceptable version of marriage because few are fighting to make it any better. In many countries, civil unions have benefits similar to marriage (and a few have equal benefits) - so why does it seem like here in the USA there would still be a homosexual uprising if civil unions provided the EXACT SAME benefits as marriage but had a different name because of the difference in gender-combinations?

Rally the troops to buff up civil unions and leave marriage alone. Besides, if you follow the news you'd see that when it all comes down to it, gays already have the right to get married. They just aren't able to marry each other yet.

Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport

I'm sure there'll be a flood of comments on how wrong I am or how wrong my logic is. It really doesn't matter to me - like I said, my opinion doesn't matter in the long run. I'm not gay, and I'm not getting married anytime soon.

But let's face the facts - how can gays expect to be given equal rights from the legislative branch when the truth is that the POSSIBILITY of a representative being gay coincides with being asked to step down and resign. You've seen it in the news - and while people are supposedly more against him for the criminal nature of his sexual transgression, the fact that it was of the homosexual persuasion is what's raising all of the eyebrows and shaking fists... If a senator has to protect his career by announcing (denial or not) that he is NOT GAY - what chance do gay people REALLY have at this point to be taken seriously or as full equals in every sense of the word?

No, that's not how it SHOULD be. It SHOULD be different. But this is what it IS and HAS BEEN. Maybe in the future, things WILL be different...







Read more!

Serving Sizes: I've Got Your "Fun Size" Right Here!

If there were ever doubts that the marketing and advertising world is just a tangled web of lies - you'd find it evident in two simple words: "Serving Size". For as long as I can remember, I've had people telling me to "read the food labels" and make "healthy choices". So, for most people, that involves picking up two things, looking at the calorie and RDA numbers sitting on the label on the back of the package, and then picking one with smaller numbers. Of course, NONE of that matters without bothering to take a look at the horrific description sitting next to those two simple words...

Who the hell gets to decide what a serving size should be??

Because they're not doing a very good job.

Case in point: A normal package of ramen noodles contains TWO servings.

That means that some people actually believe that while you're boiling water on a hot plate in some dilapidated dormroom to cook up a package of 10-cent noodles, you actually plan on only eating HALF of it. As if you're going to "save the rest for another meal". That right there is an outrage - and it's just the tip of the iceburg. Just about anything you purchase, food-wise or beverage-wise, has unacceptable ideas about how much you should be eating at once.

Fig Newtons: 2 cookies.

As Brian Regan says, "Two cookies? I eat Fig Newtons by the sleeve! Two sleeves is a serving size! Who the hell only eats two cookies? 'Oh, would you like a Fig Newton?' 'I don't know, I already ate two whole entire cookies - I don't know if I could muscle another one in... *mmmmph* No! I am stuffed to the rafters!' 'We got one for the E.R. here, we have a three Fig Newton eater!' 'HOW MANY DID HE HAVE???'"

Snickers: 35g-58.7g!

This one actually varies! I've seen a few wrappers (and I think you KNOW I've seen a few wrappers). The first one I had to look at was the "Fun-Size" wrapper, which thankfully admits that a serving size is TWO bars (40g). Then you move on to the regular-size candy bar, and the serving size changes to ONE bar, which is now 58.7 grams of candy confection. So okay, what about the King-Size bar? Now the serving size DROPS to ONE-THIRD of the bar, which is only 35 grams! As if I'm supposed to eat one-third of that bar, and then fold over the wrapper and go, "Boy, that was a tasty treat! Now I'll save the other two-thirds for two different snacking opportunities at later times!" That's bullshit, wrapped in a lovely chocolate coating.

Doritos: 11 or 12 chips.

Another interesting variance here. No matter what the size of the bag, the servings at least stay at a consistent unbelievable amount. Whether it's a "Snack-Size" bag (which pretty much contains only 11 or 12 freakin' chips) to a normal-sized bag to the Family-Sized bag (because they eliminated Super-Size for no real reason) - it's always 11 or 12 chips. This variance is strangely dependant on the FLAVOR of Doritos being consumed. If it's Nacho Cheese, you get 11 chips in your 28-gram serving. If it's Cool Ranch, you can actually get to eat 12 chips as your 28-gram serving. I guess all that orange powder weighs more on each chip than the green/red powder. Go figure!

Seriously, I could go on all day citing horrible amounts of serving sizes that just aren't true. I didn't even touch upon the nature of a 1/2-cup serving of ice cream. And the fact that most SCOOPS of ice-cream are more than 1/2-cup, so shouldn't that throw up a warning sign that a serving OBVIOUSLY is more than what's being printed?

Bottom line - serving sizes need to be revamped, big time. I'd say that if an average American can open up a package and consume the entire contents and not think twice about it - the serving size is "one package". Adjust the calorie/fat content nutritional label accordingly, so we can understand that we KNOW we're going to be eating the whole thing, so just tell us how bad it is for us. Don't lie and say that my ramen is "only" 38% of my daily recommended allowance of sodium if one actual package really contains 76%! There's too many large packages out there that hide behind the motto of "but we printed that you're only supposed to have ONE cookie as a serving! Not our fault if you ate half the package, which is 6 cookies!"

I also want to briefly touch upon one more FDA-bullshit fact: if a serving contains less than 0.5 grams of fat per serving, a product can be labelled as "nonfat" or "fat-free". Legally. Approved by the FDA. What they DON'T regulate is the serving size! A spraycan of aerosolized cooking spray (MADE ENTIRELY OF FAT) has a serving size of less than 0.5 grams. So it logically doesn't contain more than 0.5 grams of fat in the serving. So it can print "NONFAT" on the label! Imagine! A product MADE OF FAT can declare itself NONFAT if the serving size is small enough!

If that's not enough to convince you to never ever trust the FDA, I've got lots more stories I could tell. But for now, I'll leave it at that - and open the floor for any other complains about poor choices of serving sizes! Feel free to post some of your own!







Read more!

Butt-Biting Bug Bestows Bliss

I'm going to take a break from the political claptrap and bring you something downright hilarious. Or disgusting. It's really your opinion. Frankly, I find it to be a little of both. But since it comes from Japan, it's already getting several bonus points in MY book.

The name of the craze is "Oshiri Kajiri Mushi" - which literally translates to "Butt-Biting Bug".

The cartoon character is... exactly what you'd expect. It's a bug. Who bites butts. To help people...

Yes, apparently the bite of the butt-biting bug causes happiness and bliss and other randomly-joyous things that you wouldn't expect would arise from a giant bug chomping down on your buttocks. In one scene in the intro (oh, did I mention there's a cartoon show?) - the Butt-Biting Bug takes a glomp on a man's butt, causing him to propel forward while holding his bouquet of flowers, directly into the path of some woman. Wouldn't you know it, they get married! Thanks, Butt-Biting Bug!

Here's some hilarity from a Butt-Biting Bug interview in the Japanese magazine "Sunday Mainichi":

The Butt-Biting Bug is the creation of an artist couple called Uruma and Terubi, who work together under the nom de plume of Urumaterubi.

"I was watching Terubi wash the dishes one night when the words 'butt-biting bug' just suddenly popped into my mind," Uruma tells Sunday Mainichi, recalling the creation of their fabulously famous fairy.

The weekly notes that the current Butt-Biting Bug is actually the 18th generation of its family. Terubi elaborates on the Butt-Biting Bug's colorful past, even if the explanation is a bit bizarre.

"The Butt-Biting Bug's genealogy can be traced back to ancient Assyria. Butt-Biting Bugs traveled across the ocean with Columbus and the current bug's ancestors heard of a land in the east called Jipang and heard tales of how it was filled with gold," Terubi tells Sunday Mainichi. "Generation after generation of Butt-Biting Bugs headed east in search of golden asses until the 17th generation, the mother and father of the current bug, finally arrived here in Japan."

You get to see a glimpse of the parents of this 17th-generation Butt Biting Bug during the intro, as the bug laments over the bitter taste of large city asses - the taste of which apparently causes it to pass out, get a fever, and have fevered flashback thought bubbles showing his parents. Oh, Butt-Biting Bug! Will you ever find a golden ass and bite it to bring pride and honor to your parents??

It's a cartoon. And a CD. And a DVD. It's swept the entire nation of Japan. And now it's on the internet. Is it only a matter of time before the United States is overrun with derriere-devouring delights? Or will our bitter fat city asses keep the critters at bay, across the Pacific?

Only time will tell...

(The article - I seriously can't make this stuff up)

(The Youtube Video)







Read more!

Why Isn't This Mandated??

I was just idly reading my RedEye this morning (okay, not "idly" as much as "looking for something to rant about") and a tiny blurb caught my eye. Buried deep in the Chicago news section was one paragraph that reads the following:

"Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Friday signed a new Illinois law requiring first-time drunk driving offenders to install breath test devices in their vehicles and pass the test every time they try to start their engines. If the driver's breath exceeds the alcohol limit, the alcohol ignition interlock device - which costs about $150 to install, plus monthly fees - ensures the car won't start."

Why isn't this mandated already? Why isn't this a standard??

Forgive me from taking a turn away from my usual "keep the guv'ment out of mah business" type of rants, but this is about safety and about being realistic. We're already stuck in a crappy society with a government that actually tickets people for not wearing a seatbelt and can arrest you for driving without insurance.

Got that? Make you pay money for not protecting YOURSELF and arrest you for not being FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE and CAUTIOUS.

So why are they letting people drive around without protecting OTHER PEOPLE and stopping drunk drivers before they even begin the driving part of the equation?? Now I don't own a car, and I've never bought a car, but if they threw in a mandatory $150 extra when you bought your car, new or used (if the used car didn't have it already) to install this breathalyzer device - would it really be that noticable? I mean you're already paying thousands of dollars, and likely the car dealer's going to be screwing you out of a lot more with "add-ons" anyway, right? Call it a "car tax" if you will, since the government should be making it mandatory for cars to have it and undoubtedly it's the buyer who foots the bill.

And as for the "plus monthly fees"? Again, not a car owner, but I reckon most car owners wind up paying a pretty penny on upkeep for their vehicle every month anyway, if not every other month or so. Between the already-stupid mandatory insurance, vehicle repairs, and that ever-rising price of gasoline - is an extra monthly fee really that noticable? Besides, if you tacked it onto your insurance plan, it'd benefit in the long run. Fees could go down for good drivers, get raised for those who still manage to mess things up. Just like your normal insurance plan screws you over, you know?

Think about the end results, though! No more drunk drivers! (Okay, well, a severe decrease in drunk drivers!!)

It's true - you'll never get rid of drunk drivers. After all, who's to say what goes down after the car's been started? Wouldn't be the first time someone was drinking while AT the wheel - won't be the last. I'm sure plenty of sober idiots would be blowing into their friends' breathalyzers as payment for a ride home or something. And luckily, DNA evidence would prove who was driving wasn't the person who blew into the device last, and more people could be arrested for "enabling" the drunken driving dilemma.

I won't say it's the best idea I've had - or the most practical to put into effect - but at least it's an idea. It's an idea that has some potential. Maybe in the hands of some other sane and rational people (not government officials, I need some RATIONAL thinkers here) it could become a feasible idea, and a practical one. Maybe then it could be passed to the legislators to hem and haw over until someone shows them Red Asphalt and they all cry, "Yes! Make this a law so there's no more Red Asphalt!!"

After all, that's how it worked with the whole "foie gras debacle". Let's get to brainstorming and make this happen. Then maybe we can get to work on abolishing the pointless seatbelt laws...







Read more!

Vick's Dogs Dying Anyway?

Yes, dogfighting is cruel. Yes, Vick and his cronies buying dogs, "training" them and then fighting them to the death is cruelty. You're not going to hear me say otherwise - it's a vicious thing to do and he deserves jail time for his misdeeds.

But at the end of the day - aren't they just going to die anyway?

Welcome to the life of pit bulls - a breed of dogs that has been bred over many years to be an aggressive animal used for guarding and attacking. Just as golden retrievers have been bred to be best at helping the blind get through their day as seeing-eye dogs, and just as border collies have been bred to herd sheep for their owners, and just as chihuahuas have been bred to shake nervously and pee - pit bulls were bred for vicious action.

No, I'm not blaming the dogs for the cruelty they were put through - I'm saying that they're the most likely candidates to fall victim to this bloodsport in the seedy underbelly of society. You're not going to train a poodle to kill in the ring - you'd want a dog that has the look and the potential to be a killing machine. Enter the pit bull. Then enter Michael Vick.

This guy and his friends admittedly purchased a location and owned a kennel specifically for these dogs. They trained them and put them through the wringers to hone in on their killing skills, and that does suck. But when you get right down to it, where do you draw the line between Michael Vick's dastardly ploy that winds up with winners and losers and potential death for any of these pit bulls - and the government's seizing of the pit bulls after locking up Vick and the others, creating a ticking clock for all of these animals to be simply put to death.

That's right - they're all destined to die.

Truth of the matter is, there's nothing anyone can do. They've tried notifying anyone they can of people who left their dogs at the kennel or sold their dogs to Vick and his cohorts. The dogs are sitting in shelters right now. The window to claim them was over a few days ago, 30 days after their initial seizure in late July. They're now currently owned by the federal government, and it's going to be a federal judge's decision that deems whether these animals live or die. Well, I mean live longer than if the judge demands euthanasia. Which is highly likely.

Even PETA - those douchebags who always pray for animal peace and welfare and then perform terrorist acts against businesses to "make a point" - says they're going to die. And PETA should know - over 90% of the animals "rescued" by this organization are killed and their carcasses are thrown into a walk-in freezer until they can be disposed of.

Says Daphna Nachminovitch, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, "There's no dispute over who owns the dogs. Obviously this is not going to be a process where someone steps forward and says, 'This is my dog, can I have her back, please?' These dogs are a ticking time bomb. Rehabilitating fighting dogs is not in the cards. It's widely accepted that euthanasia is the most humane thing for them."

And that's PETA talking!

The damage has been done. The dogs are now "damaged goods" and nobody's going to be able to take care of them. They're too aggressive (beyond the aggressive nature of the breed in general) to be taken in as pets. It's bad enough to watch a family adopt a pit bull, knowing their violent tendencies, but to adopt one that's already been TRAINED TO KILL? I don't think so.

So they're going to die anyway. Whether they stayed at Bad Newz Kennels and fought to the death as valiantly as possible until the bitter loss of defeat ended their career and life - or were kept in a fenced cell for 30 days until a judge banged a gavel and they were injected with a lethal cocktail and died quickly and without a fight - they will be dying soon.

So what's the lesson in this? Do we regulate the breeding of these animals so there are less of this aggressive breed around to have people train them and fight them in the underground dogfights that simply cannot be stopped? (Let's face it, even the police have no idea how to stop the dogfights from going on because they almost ALWAYS find out AFTER the fights and the damage has been done and nobody is arrested because it's too late to find anyone.) Do we try and up the ante and make the penalties harsher for these crimes that so rarely get caught - just to satiate the public when a rare arrest is actually made? Do we just kill all the members of PETA? (Sorry, that's just for my benefit, so one of these rhetorical questions rings out as "yes" for me.)

Truth is - I have no idea. Which isn't that horrible of a thing. But it's the fact that the government has no idea either. And we still can't even decide if it should BE the government's decision to make. After all, we are the humans and they are the beasts - that gives us the right to own them and eat them, so why not let us fight them? And why not let us eat them, no matter what the beast? When you look at the delicacies of THIS country, let alone those of other countries (rat buffet, anyone?) - don't you get the impression that if it's made of meat, we can eat it?

That's my solution, anyway. I've heard the saying, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Well, mine's more of an "Eat 'em all and let the Intestines sort 'em out!" kind of plan.

Bob Barker led an amazing career of telling us to spay or neuter our pets to help control the pet overpopulation problem. I say that it's a lot more humane to kill 'em and grill 'em than it is to chop off their testicles and let 'em STILL wander the streets. We solve the pet overpopulation problem, and we provide meat to the impoverished, at home and overseas. We've already domesticated them and learned to breed them as well - isn't it a matter of time before they join the rest of the domesticated/bred animal kingdom like cows and pigs and sheep?

Now, before you go painting me as Cruella de Ville with a lovely Dalmation coat, it's just an idea. A crazy and seemingly insensitive one, true - but can you really argue that it's worse than rescuing over 50 dogs from a cruel underground dogfighting circuit and telling us that the only thing we can do for these dogs is to KILL THEM? At least in my version, a poor family can have Pit Bull Fajitas or something...

I'm open to hear other ideas - go for it. Tell me how YOU think we should stop what cannot be stopped - and then at the end of the day find something positive to do about it in the end. Because you can't stop the dogfighting. And you can barely attempt to stop the breeding of the dogs themselves. And you can't stop the killing of animals that can't be adopted even though you "rescued" them.

So what do we do? Leave a comment. Let me know YOUR ideas. Together, maybe we can do something...

(The article with the deadline and PETA bitch)
(A website with a friendly reminder that animal cruelty is bad - in case somehow we forget that)







Read more!

Romney vs. Giuliani: Illegal Immigrants and Anchor Babies

One of the hot-topic issues that will undoubtedly be coming up again and again in the 2008 elections will be that of illegal immigration and all of the subtopics associated with it. One such subtopic is regarding the legal citizens born to illegal immigrants and their rights to the same things that the rest of the citizens of the United States have access to. For example, in the 1982 Plyler vs. Doe decision, the Supreme Court ruled that children of illegal immigrants have a constitutional right to public education.

While this decision doesn't make reference to whether or not the "children of illegal immigrants" are US citizens or not (I'm not in the mood to look it up) - I'm going to assume it's referring to LEGAL children. If they're legally here, I say they have the right to an education, same as everyone else. While I'm fairly sure that the above decision was referring to illegal immigrant children, I say "no" to the idea of them taking up the taxpayers' money and filling another seat in an overcrowded and understaffed classroom. Maybe if there weren't any illegal immigrant kids in our public school system, teachers could teach better, students could learn more, and we wouldn't be failing all of our tests as a nation.

Either way, whether the child itself is a citizen or not, the fact remains that neither parent is a legal citizen. Which means that they shy away from the school system to enroll their child for fear of being asked a bunch of questions about their immigration status and getting arrested and deported like the criminals they are. They also shy away from hospitals, for the same reason, and refuse to do their part in stopping crime because to attempt to be a witness in court or make a police statement, they'd be at risk of getting "found out" and they again would be arrested and deported because they're here illegally and that's a crime.

Rudy Giuliani wants that to stop happening. He favors a "don't ask, don't tell" policy involving illegal immigrants, that police officers and school officials and hospital workers shouldn't be allowed to inquire about a person's citizenship status unless it's part of an actual investigation of a crime. By which I'm sure he means "A crime BEYOND the initial crime of breaking the law and entering our country illegally."

Mitt Romney represents the other side of the equation - that illegal immigration is illegal and maybe it's a good thing that these criminals are afraid of stepping into the light because they'll be seen as the criminals they are. After all, if a man robs a liquor store and gets shot by the clerk in the process, is he likely to go to a hospital to get treated for his "GSW" (gunshot wound, to those who don't watch any hospital-themed TV shows)? Or is he likely to stay in the shadows, get poor or unreliable medical treatment (if any), and possibly die of infection or blood loss? Sure, he's caught between a rock and a hard place - possibly dying from the injury or going to jail when the GSW is reported by hospital staff - but if he didn't want to be put in that position, he shouldn't have robbed a frickin' liquor store!

Giuliani actually tries to bring up one valid point - that something affecting an illegal immigrant runs the risk of spreading to the legal community. An illegal child sick with a fever and possibly-contagious illness runs the risk of spreading it to the community if not allowed to be treated at a hospital. An illegal witness to a violent crime runs the risk of having the criminal continue the crime spree in the community if damning witness testimony isn't being provided by those too afraid to give it. Allowing kids who don't go to school runs the risk of having them grow up to be dumb gangbangers and continuing the stereotype of illegal immigrants committing MORE crimes of a violent nature if their illegal parents are too afraid to enroll them.

But some of these are risks we're willing to take, according to Romney.

We're fine with turning our backs on illegal children who want to leech time and energy from our school system and the poor teachers. After all, they don't belong here, and the less they learn and assimilate, the easier it'll be to find them and send them back to their country. As for a sick person who'll be infecting others - luckily that's why we have hospitals, health insurance, doctors, HMOs and a crappy-but-existant healthcare system. For our citizens. Maybe that'll teach citizens to either stay away from or report all illegal immigrants - especially the sick ones. Then they can be picked up and taken back to Mexico and the healthcare system Mexico offers its own citizens. You're a Mexican citizen, not an American - take up space in THEIR healthcare system! As for the idiots who don't go to school because their parents won't enroll them? We need better truance officers, I guess. You know, people on the lookout for children who aren't in school? Find the children, keep them off the streets (and preferably back in their own damned country if they weren't born here) - maybe then they'll learn the only lesson they need and probably wouldn't learn in school: You don't belong here, because you're not an American citizen!

Me? I'm siding with Romney on this one. Sounds like there's actually a candidate who's as against illegal immigration as I'd LIKE our President to be. Unfortunately, I haven't heard much coming from him in the form of plans to put the opinion to action. That's what I'm waiting for. So Mitt, if you're out there, reading this - let me know...

...I've got PLENTY of ideas to share with you.

(Some of the Romney v. Giuliani info)





Read more!

Letter to RedEye: Political Book-Reading

I think I'm going to start entering my reader-response letters that I send to the CTA here on my BlogSpot, since only 1 in 4 at best actually get printed in the paper. That number will probably drop thanks to the fact that I'm writing more often, due to increased boredom while in possession of the RedEye in the mornings.

Here's one I sent yesterday, in response to their call for comments about an article saying that liberals read more books than conservatives. There was some kind of poll done (which I'm sure was done haphazardly with either poor sampling or poor logic in general, judging by the results and how they're being generalized) and the end results show liberals reading more books than conservatives. So here's my response:

(UPDATE! They printed! Grab a copy of your Friday RedEye if you're in Chicago and see my response in the Powerpoints section! I have bolded the parts they printed.)

A poll showing that liberals read more books than conservatives doesn't mean very much to me. When you think about it statistically, wouldn't you have to take into account the fact that there are a lot more books being written by liberals or with liberal points of view than on the conservative side? I'd like to think that the difference between liberals and conservatives would be about the same between books available to read and the readers themselves. After all, it seems doubtful that one would pick up a book geared towards the other.

Either way, it really shouldn't matter about which political party reads more books or worrying that readership among the parties is low - it should be about making sure that CHILDREN are reading. They're the ones who need to be given access to ALL ideas, left or right, so they can learn to think for themselves and in turn become upstanding citizens and members of whatever political party they see fit. We need more Harry Potters turning kids on to reading and less books that result in older stubborn people turning against each other in a "who's more well-read than whom" spitting contest.

Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport

(I sincerely hope that my response doesn't trigger a score of "President He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" jokes.)

Your thoughts? Your opinions? I know that liberals love to make more-learnéd-than-thou remarks about certain "dumb Republicans" - but doesn't MY argument make sense? Read more!

"Native Americans" Frauding Illegal Immigrants?

This is just so intriguing, I couldn't help but post about it. It's got some of my favorite things in it - illegal immigrants, idiots getting screwed out of money, and frauders of grand proportions. All of it combines so deliciously, providing hilarious ways to help curb the illegal immigrant population and new reasons why I'm probably going to hell. But at least I'll be laughing all the way there.

I'll start at the beginning. With the Kaweah Indian Nation. Which isn't.

You see, the Kaweah Indian Nation isn't an actual Indian tribe. The federal Bureau of Indian Affairs denied the Kaweah group recognition in 1985 because it was not a real tribe. Well, a Kaweah tribe DID exist at one time, but it is completely unrelated to the one that applied for recognition. Okay, so now that we're up to speed on the illegitimate nature of the tribe itself, let's see what it decided to do.

In an attempt to profit, it started selling tribe memberships. Think about that: they started a process where you can APPLY to become a member of the tribe. This isn't a matter of proving ancestral heritage, this is an application and a signup fee - like a club. So who would be interested in purchasing membership in an Indian tribe that isn't really an Indian tribe?

Illegal immigrants.

That's right, those leeches on America are the ones being pulled in by the scam. Because the tribe's high chief makes claim that one could use the Indian tribal membership papers as legal paperwork to prove citizenship. Seriously, a tribe of Native Americans (named that because they were here before WE all emigrated) are selling that status to illegal immigrants (named that because they come in illegally and are destroying OUR "native" status).

Here's what makes it all worth it: It means nothing!

That's right - paperwork from an Indian tribe (legit or not) is no proof of citizenship or nothing that advances you anywhere in the direction of citizenship! Iimmigration authorities insist becoming a tribe member gives no protection against being deported - contrary to the claims being made by Manuel Urbina, the tribe's high chief who says, "We are not going against the law, we're with the law," and claims that membership papers can help illegal immigrants avoid being detained by authorities if they are asked for documents. It's all false. "You can't just decide to become a member of a tribe and all of a sudden legalize your status," said Marilu Cabrera from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

So basically, it's a scam. But it's a scam I can sit back and be proud of! This is nothing like the whole Nigerian prince thing that feeds on the naive, the incompetent and the elderly. This is a brave new world of scamming - designed to play on one group in particular and doing a great job of using that group's ignorance against themselves! I'm just glad that the group being taken advantage of is ironically a group that takes advantage of real U.S. citizens - AND BONUS that the group taking advantage of them is ironically a group that's long been taken advantage of by U.S. citizens!

Seriously, how hilarious is this??

And if you're thinking either 1) no way that this could possibly be working effectively or 2) no way that illegal immigrants have ill-gotten money enough to fall for this hook, line and sinker - GUESS AGAIN! Manuel Urbina, the tribe's high chief, acknowleged his group has sold at least 10,000 tribal memberships to illegal immigrants for about $50 each. That's over half a million dollars!! And that's just the Kaweah tribe, who had Nebraskan illegal immigrants paying up to $1,200 to join their fake Indian tribe! Let's not forget the fact that one good turn always deserves another...

A Florida man said he sold about 2,000 memberships to the North Dakota-based Pembina Nation Little Shell tribe through a Web site. Each cost $150. That's another $300,000 right there! And to make matters worse (did I say "worse"? I meant "much better") - the illegals are falling for it COMPLETELY. They're even trying to use these tribal memberships to try and get passports and Social Security cards - and obviously getting caught and indicted for being illegal immigrants!!

This is the perfect system. The scammed get to scam, they're scamming the criminals, and the scam itself leads to the criminals who fell for the scam getting ARRESTED for being criminals!

Fake Indian tribes selling bogus membership to illegal immigrants - I salute you!

(Proof that I'm not making this crazy scenario up!)







Read more!